One other story that particularly caught my fancy was hearing about the hundreds of Olympic athletes who went to McDonald’s in the Olympic village. Rumor has it that athletes could eat for free there, and they certainly took advantage of the opportunity.

However, hearing about eating fast food beef in South America particularly piqued my interest because I’ve been working on a new report about the ways that beef is connected to tropical deforestation. And I know that when athletes, tourists, or locals visit McDonald’s, Burger King or a number of other American fast food restaurants in South America, there is a distinct possibility that the food they are eating may be linked to tropical deforestation.

Our scorecard

All 13 of the large consumer goods companies we scored need to strengthen their deforestation-free beef policies and practices.

South America, and Brazil in particular, exports beef and other cattle products all around the world. Beef produced in South America can be found in pet food, canned beef products, and in American-based fast food restaurants in South America.

We took a look at 13 global fast food, retail, and food manufacturing companies that buy beef from South America. After scrutinizing their written policies, communicating with the companies and asking questions, we found that all 13 companies have a long way to go before they can be confident that none of the beef they are buying is linked to deforestation.

We scored the companies on a variety of different criteria, from how public they are about what they plan to achieve with their beef supply chain to the mechanisms by which they verify their beef sourcing. To the right is a table that outlines their scores.

As you can see, there may be a few silver and bronze medals, but no company yet deserves the gold and most companies don’t even make it near the podium. Nine of the 13 companies, Burger King, ConAgra, Hormel, Jack Link’s, Kroger, Pizza Hut, Safeway, Subway, and Wendy’s, lack any kind of public commitment to deforestation-free beef sourcing. Nestlé has a commitment, but needs to implement it. Three companies, McDonald’s, Walmart, and Mars are making the most progress. Yet their scores still show that there is huge room for improvement.

Improvement needed

This is one example of how deforestation-risk beef enters the supply chain.

In particular, there were two areas where commitments and implementation are hugely lacking. Where companies had deforestation-free commitments and practices, they either were only for the Brazilian Amazon or were only being implemented there. There is no doubt that the Brazilian Amazon is an important biome with huge stores of carbon, an important part of the climate, and lots of special animals.

However, there are other really unique and important ecosystems outside of the Brazilian Amazon that are also undergoing conversion for agriculture. A company that ensures that there beef doesn’t cause deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is far from deforestation-free. What about the huge swathes of the Amazon not located in Brazil? What about the drier forests to the south, such as the Cerrado or the Chaco, with amazing species diversity of their own? It is time for companies to stop only protecting the most iconic forest and start protecting all forests.

One of the other major problems is that beef associated with deforestation can often sneak into the supply chain even if a company reviews its suppliers. A few meatpackers (slaughterhouses) check that the ranches from which they source are not associated with deforestation.

However, as you can see from the graphic at left, there are many cases where cattle is moved from one farm to another, and though the ranch that the meatpacker may be sourcing from may be free from deforestation, there may be cattle that was raised on a previous farm associated with deforestation at that ranch. Until the loopholes in this system are closed by tracking cattle all the way back to where they were born, cattle associated with deforestation are likely to continue to be a part of companies’ supply chains.

To be the best

Both Walmart and McDonald’s are positioning themselves to be the best of the best on beef. But while they certainly have gone further than other companies scored here, they have huge loopholes in their policies and practices. Both companies need to increase the amount of information they make public about their beef sourcing. They need to make sure that systems they use to trace cattle go all the way back to indirect supplying ranches. Walmart in particular needs to have a policy that applies to all beef products, included processed beef. And McDonald’s needs to follow through and commit to a plan for eliminating deforestation from its beef supply chain, rather than simply stating that it plans to.

Because now is the time when the world is tuning in, watching to see what companies are competing to provide the best products and services in the world. They need to know that means not just tasty food or good customer service, but also providing quality assurance that their products are sourced sustainably. To tell companies that they need to step up and do a better job of eliminating deforestation-risk beef in their supply chains, go here. And maybe one day soon we will see a gold medal performance.

Restaurant Brands International (RBI), the third largest fast-food operator in the world, recently released its first Sustainability Framework to the public. Formed in 2014, RBI is the parent company of both Burger King and Canadian donut giant Tim Hortons, and this international corporation operates in almost 100 countries and has more than $23 billion in sales. Its 13-page Sustainability Framework outlines RBI’s “areas of focus and priorities for the near future” and is full of information on RBI’s intentions and past efforts around five categories: food values, responsible sourcing, best people, communities, and the environment.

So I took a close look at RBI’s commitments in terms of tropical deforestation, and found that the plan is lacking in real action. The framework raises more questions than it answers. Here are four of them.

Why does a company that had a deforestation commitment in regard to beef production no longer have one?

With a brand name like “Burger King”, beef is front and center in RBI’s corporate identity. As beef drives a disproportionate amount of tropical deforestation, particularly in South America where cattle grazing often replaces natural ecosystems, corporations need to understand the risks in their own supply chain. With tropical deforestation causing 10% of all climate change emissions, hundreds of thousands of consumers have already demanded that Burger King and RBI go deforestation-free. RBI’s investors were so concerned they filed a shareholder resolution echoing customer sentiment.

The section of the framework on RBI’s commitments in terms of its beef started off very promising, “At Restaurant Brands International, our brands have made beef sustainability an important area of focus.” However, that’s about where the good news ends.

The sole commitment that they make in regard to beef, one of their most iconic ingredients, is that they are members of two different roundtables that work to address issues related to beef sustainability. The more relevant roundtable—which deals with regions where forests are at risk from beef cattle—is the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB). This roundtable works to improve sustainability in beef supply chains throughout the world. In joining the GRSB, RBI commits to a fee of $15,000, agrees to generally support the mission of the GRSB, to attend one meeting per year, and a few other nonspecific measures.

However, there is no requirement that RBI, or in turn Burger King, take any definitive action towards ensuring that the beef they are selling to their customers meets any type of environmental standards. In fact, RBI makes no mention that beef they are sourcing may be at risk of contributing to tropical deforestation. In essence, RBI simply states that they plan to explore making a commitment in this next year. Contrast this to a major competitor, McDonald’s, which is several steps ahead of Burger King, having committed to ensuring that none of their raw materials contribute to deforestation.

In 2010, Burger King put out a fact sheet which said, “For more than 20 years, [Burger King Corp.] has maintained a rainforest policy for its beef suppliers prohibiting the sourcing of beef from cattle that graze on lands formerly designated as rainforests. BKC is currently reviewing its overall rainforest policy to include all of its products.” However, I am no longer able to find this statement publicly, nor can I find this overall rainforest policy.

Why does one of the largest fast-food companies in the world still need to develop a plan to deal with deforestation, when they committed to doing so at least 6 years ago?

I’ve been following this company for almost two years now, and Burger King even before that. When the merger of Burger King and Tim Hortons was announced in August of 2014, I was concerned that their parent corporation, RBI, would not strengthen the fast food giants’ palm oil policies. Individually, neither company had committed to ensuring that all the palm oil used in their products was free from deforestation. In particular, UCS scored Burger King’s commitment to deforestation-free, peat-free palm oil in both 2014 and 2015. In 2014, Burger King’s commitments on palm oil were so weak that they did not merit any points. In 2015, their score was marginally higher based on the fact that they joined the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, a multi-stakeholder group with interests in the palm oil industry. However, at the time they made no demonstrable commitment to further action.

Sound familiar?

Why does a company that, at one point, acknowledged that all products need to be deforestation-free now only recognize deforestation risk in its palm oil and fiber-based packaging?

Eventually, RBI did go slightly further than joining the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil. It currently buys GreenPalm certificates, which are widely seen as insufficient for addressing the deforestation risks related to a company’s palm oil purchases. While RBI has plans to source palm oil through better channels, the implementation plans still fail to live up to their pledge to “source palm oil that does not contribute to deforestation nor development on peatlands, and protects both High Conservation Value and High Carbon Stock areas.” This lack of follow-through and understanding of what Roundtable initiatives can do is troubling in the palm oil context and beyond.

What’s the value of roundtables?

I am by no means denying that multi-stakeholder initiatives can play important roles in transitioning agriculture towards more sustainable operations. Truthfully, it is encouraging to see major players in the space engaging in conversations and initiatives to hopefully transform the industry for the better. They also can connect corporate actors with civil society organizations, government, and academic institutions, allowing for more collaboration and sharing of lessons learned between these groups.

However, too many companies join these processes in what I see as a move to avoid taking real action on their supply chains. The cost to join, for a company with sales in the billions, is a pittance. Yet for the price of membership, companies are able to fill their sustainability reports with fancy-sounding initiatives to fool the general public into thinking that they are making concerted efforts towards sustainability.

Roundtables can only be successful when members commit not only to joining, but also to assuming an active role within these multi-stakeholder groups and taking steps within their own companies to move forward. Roundtables can be great fora for envisioning a future beyond what is already feasible. But they are not a substitute for individual company action.

Joining these roundtables would be an encouraging step if RBI also took individual responsibility for the impacts of its own supply chain on deforestation. It needs to recognize that beef, soy, and many other commodities are linked to deforestation and put into place a timebound plan for ensuring that its own supplies are not.

We are all waiting for answers to these questions.

]]>https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/four-questions-about-a-fast-food-giants-role-in-tropical-deforestation/feed0https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/four-questions-about-a-fast-food-giants-role-in-tropical-deforestationHow to Keep New Year’s (and Deforestation-Free) Resolutionshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationLaelGoodman/~3/yDcX6C2OWsk/how-to-keep-new-years-and-deforestation-free-resolutions
https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/how-to-keep-new-years-and-deforestation-free-resolutions#commentsWed, 30 Dec 2015 16:00:27 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=40939New Year’s is possibly my least favorite time of the year—it reminds me of getting older, everything that I didn’t get done in the past year, and that I still don’t know much Spanish. But this year, inspired by my colleagues, my brother-in-law, and the movie Fed Up, I will be reducing the amount of sugar in my diet.

It’s that time of the year again.

To give myself every advantage, I’m planning ahead. I looked up tips and tricks for keeping New Year’s resolutions. As I began to write down the findings listed on multiple websites, I realized that everything advised for keeping personal resolutions has a corollary in the corporate world for making and following through on strong palm oil and deforestation-free pledges.

In 2015, businesses all over the world have made sustainability commitments. Of course, this is fantastic news. But as I’ve noted before, forests are helped only once these commitments begin to be implemented. So as a reminder to those of us using 2016 as an excuse to better ourselves—and to those companies bettering the world with environmental pledges—here are some tips for success.

Make your commitment public.

Companies: This is sometimes the very first public step for companies. Often, they have been researching for months or even years to find out what is entailed in making a deforestation-free commitment. But companies should publicly post their commitments, and do it loudly and proudly. Not only will this show customers that they are taking their concerns into account, but it will show other companies that the tide has turned, and it is no longer acceptable to make products at the expense of forests.

Me: This blog post serves as my public commitment to reduce my sugar intake in 2016.

Make a plan.

Companies: Unfortunately, many companies have made public commitments, and as far as the public can tell, that is where the effort has stopped. To show that there is intention and follow-through, companies should also release a detailed plan of what are the steps needed to reach the ultimate goal. How will they work with their suppliers? How will they ensure that the ingredients they source are not linked to deforestation? Who is responsible within the company for overseeing these efforts? What will happen if violations are found?

Me: In order to tackle my sugar intake, I will need to modify three key areas of my life: breakfast, desserts, and hidden sugar. Although I am ultimately responsible for my sugar habits, I will inform my sugar suppliers (parents, friends, coworkers) that my sourcing habits will be changing. I would urge them to work with me in meeting my goals.

Be specific.

Companies: After commitments without a lot of details, questions remain. What commodities does the commitment apply to? What standards apply? How does the company define “deforestation”?

Me: I will reduce my sugar intake by one-third in 2015. The scope of my efforts excludes naturally sweetened items such as fruit and includes but is not limited to cane and beet sugar, corn syrup (high fructose or otherwise), honey, agave nectar, and all artificial sweeteners.

Set short-term goals.

Companies: Transforming an entire supply chain is complicated and is likely time-consuming. The entirety of the challenge may seem less overwhelming if it is broken up into manageable pieces. Many companies have dates by which they will have traced all their palm oil or by which they will be using sustainable (but not necessarily deforestation-free) palm oil.

Me: Although I am not even coming close to cutting all sugar out of my diet, it still feels like quite a task. So I will focus on the easiest parts to tackle first. While this might seem like a laughable goal to many, I will endeavor to remove chocolate chips from my breakfast meal by the end of February. Don’t laugh! Chocolate chip and dried cherry oatmeal is delicious—it will be hard to give up.

Make it automatic.

Companies: At first glance, this one seems a little more difficult to apply to companies. But after careful consideration, the spirit of the advice is very resonant. Companies should no longer be thinking of removing deforestation from their supply chains as “extra.” Instead, this is something that should be part of a company’s regular standards. Instead of contracting new suppliers first and then going back to figure out if their supply chain involves deforestation, ensuring environmental responsibility should be a requirement before any business is done.

Me: For many of you, eating chocolate chips at breakfast is something that is not acceptable. Indeed, my parents did not raise me this way; when I was growing up, I had a choice of approximately 6 cereals for breakfast and all of them involved bran. Yet somewhere along the way chocolate in my oatmeal because habit. I need to find a new, healthier, and less sugary go-to breakfast option and upon waking, reach for that instead of my chocolate chip oatmeal.

Get support from a community.

Companies: The good news is that there are enough companies making global commitments to deforestation-free commodities that there truly is a community. Companies can and should (and to some degree already are) work together to figure out the most efficient way to enact their policies. No one said this would be easy. Growth has been occurring at the expense of tropical forests for decades. To truly change this pattern, companies must learn from one another’s mistakes, and the resources from companies working together will go much further than individual efforts.

Me: I live alone, so I know there are so many decisions in the course of my life that no one knows about but me. I need a community to turn to when I’m going back for my third serving of ice cream (usually Moosetracks). Fed Up has some experts to follow who talk about the addiction to sugar or I could turn to my brother-in-law, who has successfully cut much of the sugar from his diet.

Celebrate successes.

Companies: The struggle is real. When there is so much at stake, the health of the planet and all its residents, it feels like anything less than achieving the final goal is failure. However, every step forward is a step in the right direction. Meeting those short-term goals is an achievement, especially if it shows that companies are putting the necessary resources into meeting their commitments. Instead of seeing these steps as falling far short of the goal, see them as a reaffirmation of the importance of the overall goal and proof that companies are taking these responsibilities seriously.

Me: Let’s be real, I’m not cutting sugar out of my diet entirely and that is not my goal. I will likely have multiple servings of desserts on some occasions and may eat chocolate for breakfast once in a while. But every day I pay attention to my sugar intake is a day that I am healthier than I would be otherwise. And that is worth celebrating, in 2016 and beyond.

]]>https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/how-to-keep-new-years-and-deforestation-free-resolutions/feed3https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/how-to-keep-new-years-and-deforestation-free-resolutionsIn the Cloud of Haze, a Silver Lining?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationLaelGoodman/~3/3uw63Gzagig/in-the-cloud-of-haze-a-silver-lining
https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/in-the-cloud-of-haze-a-silver-lining#respondFri, 20 Nov 2015 15:52:24 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=40177The haze in Southeast Asia these past couple of months has been truly unimaginable. Burning vegetation and peatlands has been devastating for the health of millions of people, for the global climate, for regional economies, and for education. The scale of this crisis became impossible to ignore. And recently, the President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo (Jokowi), has issued strong instructions which if implemented, would help to avoid future disasters of this kind.

New protections

President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) and his administration recently took steps to protect peatlands. Photo: Alex Ferry

There have been varying levels of protection for peatlands over the years. Some areas of peat 3 meters or deeper have been legally protected due to a moratorium enacted in 2011 with limits on the conversion of peatlands and primary forests. However, these new instructions from Jokowi’s administration go further than before, requiring that peatlands that have already been allocated for development by the government can no longer be cleared and drained.

In addition, the instructions aim to ensure that lands that have recently been burned are not planted which would allow bad actors to profit and would further degrade these sensitive soils. Instead, these areas are slated for restoration.

Why this year?

As I mentioned previously, this year was particularly important for many reasons, including the strong El Niño. However, while it may be true that this year’s fires were exacerbated by a long dry season, the fact of the matter is that El Niños have been occurring for hundreds of years. And in 2013, a year with relatively normal climatic conditions, there was a large haze event. Scientists now believe that haze events will be more frequent in the future because of the destruction and draining of peatlands.

This photo taken in September 2015 shows the haze over Singapore. Photo: Charles Collier

The fires and haze this year affected millions of people. But large events in the past have done the same. A haze event in 1997/1998 left the region reeling, but no substantive action was taken to prevent future events. In actuality, there is nothing new about the haze this year, except for maybe its scale and a new administration. It unfortunately took a tragedy of this proportion to get the Indonesian government to become serious about protecting their carbon-rich peatlands, but I hope that it never has to occur again.

Not there yet

The steps that Jokowi’s administration has outlined are moving in the right direction. However, while the first steps have been laid out, they are not yet law. The success of this directive is dependent upon having the force of law and subsequently allocating adequate resources to ensure peatlands are protected, rewetted, and are not allowed to endanger the health of citizens of Southeast Asia and the global climate.

]]>https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/in-the-cloud-of-haze-a-silver-lining/feed0https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/in-the-cloud-of-haze-a-silver-lining4 Reasons to Pay Attention to the Deadly Haze in Southeast Asia this Yearhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationLaelGoodman/~3/pL8GcLY6_K4/4-reasons-to-pay-attention-to-the-deadly-haze-in-southeast-asia-this-year-910
https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/4-reasons-to-pay-attention-to-the-deadly-haze-in-southeast-asia-this-year-910#commentsWed, 07 Oct 2015 20:45:30 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=39074Residents in Southeast Asia are currently being subjected to a heavy blanket of smoke and haze spreading across the region. The haze originates in large part from the burning of forests and peat soils in order to prepare land for agriculture, such as palm oil. But reading news reports and even seeing pictures cannot always convey the daily experience in the way that first-hand accounts can. The poem below was written by a 15-year-old Malaysian poet named Gloson about the 2013 haze episode and describes that haze’s effect on his everyday life.

Our land has been hit by the annual haze,
it’s sending nasal systems into a craze.
’cause forests in Sumatra have been burned with a blaze.
So now we get haze for several days.

The PSI has hit a record of four-oh-one.
It hasn’t been a gentleman to health and to fun,
outdoors, the Gangnam Style cannot be done.
(sorry, I couldn’t help avoiding the pun).

People are staying home indoors like crazy.
They sit in their sofas and full-blast the AC.
The outdoor guys, well, they don surgical masks
to carry out outdoor allergical tasks.

Nasal jammed.
Yellow phlegm.
Indoors crammed.
What a shame.

But don’t you worry, friends,
because it all will soon be fine.
Even the thickest haze will end
and the sun will shine.

This poem depicts an unpleasant reality where this young boy has to stay inside at all times with air-conditioned (and thus filtered) air. He has nasal and phlegm issues, and identifies the PSI level (Pollution Standards Index which is used in Singapore to rate air quality levels) as being at 401 – where anything over 300 is labeled as hazardous. While the poem ends on a positive note, “Even the thickest haze will end// and the sun will shine”, the fact of the matter is that before it ends, haze will have contributed to premature deaths, illness, and economic loss – only to more than likely return again next year, and the year after.

This photo taken in 2013, shows a young boy playing outside in heavy haze, a hazard to human health. Photo: Firdaus Latif

Sit up and pay attention

Earlier this year, UCS released a report detailing the harmful health and economic effects of landscape fires and the resulting haze. In that report, we took a close look at some of the results of the 1997-1998 haze event, as well as the more recent 2013 event about which this poem was written. Though the haze is now expected to occur annually, the 2015 haze event that is happening right now is particularly important for a number of reasons.

What makes this year different? I’ll tell you.

It’s an El Niñoyear, and a strong one at that. This naturally occurring climatic phenomenon leaves Southeast Asia extra dry. In fact, the last few El Niñoevents have correlated with some of the largest haze events in the region and this year is likely to be no exception. Less rain and a longer dry season means fires are more likely to spread out of control, burning huge swaths of land and spewing pollutants into the atmosphere.

This is the first full haze season since Indonesia ratified the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution in September of 2014. As the country where many of the fires burn, Indonesia’s participation could fundamentally change the efficacy of this initiative.

This is also the first full haze season with a new President of Indonesia. Joko “Jokowi” Widodo took the presidential reins of Indonesia on October 20, 2014. Recently, Jokowi has been touring the country, observing how fires are being handled and has indicated his dedication to punishing those responsible.

This is the first full haze season since Singapore passed the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act to hold entities responsible for haze, even if the haze originates outside of Singapore. It remains to be seen if this law will be useful in holding actors responsible for the haze or if it will turn out to be a mostly symbolic law.

New science

Aside from these atmospheric events and political maneuverings, in the past year there has also been new research highlighting palm oil’s contribution to the haze. Marlier et al. traced the 2006 haze in two Indonesian islands of Sumatra and Kalimantan. Palm oil concessions play a large role in both islands, and account for 67% of all concession-based emissions.

It is true, like the poem says, the haze will someday disappear and the sun will reemerge. But unless destructive burning practices cease, this respite is likely to only be until the next haze season when millions of kids like Gloson will be sequestered indoors, unable to play or breathe freely.

]]>https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/4-reasons-to-pay-attention-to-the-deadly-haze-in-southeast-asia-this-year-910/feed2https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/4-reasons-to-pay-attention-to-the-deadly-haze-in-southeast-asia-this-year-910Cleanup on Aisle 8: Why Supermarkets and Other Retail Stores Need to Clean Up Their Palm Oilhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationLaelGoodman/~3/jzzj532Ho5I/cleanup-on-aisle-8-why-supermarkets-and-other-retail-stores-need-to-clean-up-their-palm-oil-881
https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/cleanup-on-aisle-8-why-supermarkets-and-other-retail-stores-need-to-clean-up-their-palm-oil-881#commentsMon, 14 Sep 2015 14:06:10 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=385789/15/2015 Update: Since the publication of this blog, Costco has updated their palm oil commitment. Their commitment now includes specific language around the protection of forests and goes beyond a RSPO-certified commitment. However, the timeline for compliance has been pushed to 2021. Importantly, Costco has also committed to no-burn policies and some level of traceability, though they do not specify if this traceability is to the plantation level.
If you are a frequent or even occasional reader of this blog, you may have begun to suspect that I work for a nonprofit. While this means I get to do meaningful work and have gotten some amazing travel opportunities, let’s just say I’m not making a Wall Street salary. As a consequence, I’m always looking for ways to save money. Some of my favorite ways include saving a bus fare each day that I bike to work instead of taking the metro, using bags of dried beans instead of canned, and buying store brand products over name brand.
Though there are some brands to which I’ll always stay true, between two similar products, I’ll generally choose the cheaper version which tends to be the store brand. And I’m not the only one making that choice. According to the nonprofit association Private Label Manufacturers Association, in large supermarkets one out of every four products sold is a store brand.

Store brand products also contain palm oil – and too few supermarkets and retailers have committed to ensuring their supplies are deforestation and peat-free.

Store brands vs. name brands

Store brands palm oil commitment score rankings as of April 2015. In that last two weeks, both Target and Costco have released commitments that would alter their scores for the better.

As an enthusiastic amateur but not a professional food taster, there are many products where I am unable to tell the difference between the brand name and store brand product. This is not actually all that surprising—when comparing the ingredients and nutrition facts on two different labels, the two are often very similar.

Like their name brand counterparts, the store brand versions of products are also likely to contain palm oil, the most commonly used vegetable oil that has been linked to dramatic deforestation in Southeast Asia. Thus far, we have seen few commitments from supermarkets and large retailers to ensure that their store brand products use only deforestation and peat-free palm oil. In fact, compared with the leading packaged foods and personal care companies, retailers are woefully behind.

Earlier this year, UCS assessed the palm oil sourcing policies of 40 different companies, and in that report, we also took a look at large retailers’ store brands for the first time. Only one company, Safeway, had a commitment that was close to being on par with name brands in the industry.

That means that most of the cheaper, store branded products that people use every day may be linked to deforestation, habitat destruction, global warming pollution, and unhealthy haze.

Two steps forward, one step back

There are some signs that retailers are beginning to take notice of the links between palm oil and deforestation. In just the last couple of weeks, two retailers who ranked among the lowest in our spring assessment, Target (with store brands Archer Farms, Simply Balanced, Market Pantry, up & up) and Costco (with store brand Kirkland Signature), have made new palm oil commitments for their own brand products.

For Target, these steps include most impressively, a near-term timeline. By 2018, Target states that all the palm oil it uses will be traceable and sustainably sourced, effectively committing to end the use of palm oil causing deforestation or new plantations on peat soils. As referenced at the beginning of this piece, Costco updated its commitment since the publication of this blog.

However, it seems that most retail companies have yet to commit to what is becoming the norm for name brand businesses. In particular, Target’s commitments omit banning the use of fire to clear land or for replanting. And if sourcing from current oil palm plantations on peatlands, Target’s commitment fails to explicitly require that these plantations use best management practices.

We are increasingly seeing the negative effects of just such oversights. Forest fires are raging in Southeast Asia, driven partly by the unsustainable production of palm oil and other agricultural commodities on peat soils and the use of fire to clear land. These fires blaze year after year, harming the health of millions of Southeast Asians and yet still, carbon-rich peatlands are becoming agricultural fields. Unless companies specifically set standards to prevent this kind of environmental exploitation, experience shows that these practices are likely to continue.

Not such a bargain

I know that individuals are not the only ones looking to cut costs. Much as I sometimes choose store brand products, it is cheaper for plantation companies to clear the land with fire rather than with machines. However, cheaper is only better if the two options are practically indistinguishable. And while the end result may taste the same, if the method of production includes risking the lives of millions of people, destroying the habitat of endangered species, and polluting our atmosphere, then that great bargain is really a raw deal.

]]>https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/cleanup-on-aisle-8-why-supermarkets-and-other-retail-stores-need-to-clean-up-their-palm-oil-881/feed6https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/cleanup-on-aisle-8-why-supermarkets-and-other-retail-stores-need-to-clean-up-their-palm-oil-881There’s New Science On Peatland Deforestation And, Well, Oh Dear…http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationLaelGoodman/~3/9xxSlZZOM1o/new-study-peatland-deforestation-834
https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/new-study-peatland-deforestation-834#commentsThu, 06 Aug 2015 15:09:35 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=37903What if you thought the car you drove got 40 mpg but I told you that it only gets 24 mpg? What if that ice cream sandwich that you treat yourself to after dinner had not 300 calories but 500? What if leaving your air conditioner on during the day cost not $40 a month but $67? Would any of these things make you rethink your purchasing decisions or habits?

Instead of around 12 tons of carbon lost per hectare per year, our research, which takes a look at numerous studies measuring carbon emissions from drained peat soils, finds that a more likely estimate is around 20 tons of carbon lost per hectare per year. The difference is roughly equivalent to the carbon emissions from driving 70,000 miles in a car. So if the plantation contains many thousands of hectares, well – that adds up pretty quickly.

Peatlands, or peat swamp forests, provide key carbon storage and wildlife habitat. When these soils are drained for agriculture, they emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Photo: CIFOR

Why this discrepancy?

To put it simply, there is a lot we don’t know about tropical peat emissions. We do know that peat soils have been built up over thousands of years and are part of a delicate ecosystem. And we also know that peat soils are increasingly being drained for plantation agriculture, particularly in Southeast Asia. We know that peat soils are extremely carbon-rich and when drained and exposed to air they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.

But peatlands are not all drained to the same level. Some may leave only 50 cm exposed to air, and others a full meter or more. Our paper aggregated multiple studies, meaning our analysis will likely come closer to an average value than any one study. And we estimate how water table depth affects carbon emissions.

So what?

So – some of you would still eat that ice cream sandwich (I know I likely would). But I might consider a different form of transportation for my commute or using a fan during the day to circulate air and only use the air conditioner when I’m in the apartment. The fact of the matter is that knowledge is power.

As people make decisions about land use in the context of climate change, our findings show that some may be underestimating just how much attention should be paid to agricultural plantations on peatlands. They lend additional weight to the argument that tropical peatlands are more important than ever to conserve, especially from a global warming perspective.

]]>https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/new-study-peatland-deforestation-834/feed2https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/new-study-peatland-deforestation-834Where’s the Beef? Wendy’s New Palm Oil Pledge Lacks Meathttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationLaelGoodman/~3/jFT3hX2E0YQ/wheres-the-beef-wendys-new-palm-oil-pledge-lacks-meat-777
https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/wheres-the-beef-wendys-new-palm-oil-pledge-lacks-meat-777#commentsThu, 25 Jun 2015 16:31:36 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=36897Wendy’s, originator of the “Where’s the beef” catchphrase and home of the unparalleled and delicious Frosty, just came out with some new information on their palm oil sourcing plans. But much like their famed 80’s commercials in which cute senior citizens find themselves unable to locate the tiny slice of beef on a giant bun, I’m having trouble finding any real reason to celebrate Wendy’s new palm oil commitment. In fact, I keep rereading their website, searching for more substance.

Many of Wendy’s competitors have recently begun making changes to their own palm oil commitments. Dunkin’ Brands and Krispy Kreme were the first to take the plunge, followed by Yum! Brands’ and most recently, a broad commitment to deforestation-free supply chains by industry leader, McDonald’s. So it is clear why the connections between palm oil and deforestation are finally on Wendy’s radar.

Yet while Wendy’s has shown us a fluffy white bun in the form of new information on their website, the actual meat of the commitment is difficult to find. The policy only covers their operations in North America (confusingly defined as the United States and Canada even though Wendy’s definitely exists in Mexico). While the majority of their restaurants are currently in these two countries, Wendy’s operates in 27 other countries and U.S. territories and has stated that new market expansion is a “dominant driver of Wendy’s worldwide strategy over the coming years.” And it is the markets outside the United States where palm oil is most often used as a cooking oil—making it vital that this commitment become global in scope.

In fact, nowhere in their position statement does Wendy’s mention forests. They have not committed to protecting primary forests, secondary forests or peatlands. The most Wendy’s will commit to is buying RSPO-certified oil (and in some cases only GreenPalm certificates) to cover their U.S. and Canadian operations. I’ve written about the problems with GreenPalm in the past, but basically when a company uses GreenPalm certificates, the palm oil they use may still be from deforestation.

So, come on Wendy’s! Wendy’s claims on its website that it strives “to be good stewards of the environment by working closely with our vendors, to purchase products and services with a view toward energy efficiency and a low environmental impact,” yet chooses to continue to contribute to deforestation through its sourcing of unsustainable palm oil.

We know where the palm oil is, now Wendy’s, where’s the beef?

]]>https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/wheres-the-beef-wendys-new-palm-oil-pledge-lacks-meat-777/feed6https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/wheres-the-beef-wendys-new-palm-oil-pledge-lacks-meat-777FDA Bans Trans Fats: What Does This Mean for Palm Oil Consumption in the US?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationLaelGoodman/~3/oS-m7agU2uc/fda-bans-trans-fats-what-does-this-mean-for-palm-oil-consumption-in-the-us-761
https://blog.ucsusa.org/lael-goodman/fda-bans-trans-fats-what-does-this-mean-for-palm-oil-consumption-in-the-us-761#commentsTue, 16 Jun 2015 14:05:26 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=36884The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today moved to ban the use of partially hydrogenated oils, the main dietary source of artificial trans fats, after determining they are not safe to use in food. This move is hardly surprising, given that in November of 2013, the FDA made this preliminary determination. The announcement by the FDA likely means an increased amount of palm oil (a trans fat-free vegetable oil) in the diet of Americans and an opportunity for companies to source only palm oil that is deforestation and peat-free.

One of the first uses for partially hydrogenated vegetable oils was as a butter substitute. Image: Diane Duane

Trans fats in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils

Trans fats can be formed by chemically modifying vegetable oils such as soybean oil. By adding hydrogen atoms, one can cause some oils to solidify into a texture similar to that of many oils high in saturated fats, making them useful in a wide variety of food applications. This process was first discovered at the turn of the 20th century but gained wider use during World War II as rationing cut into butter supplies. While naturally occurring trans fats can be found in small amounts in some animal products, the majority of trans fats in diets come from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.

However, numerous studies point to a link between these trans fats and heart disease. The FDA initially proposed mandatory labeling of trans fats on packaging labels in 1999, and this was later enacted in 2006. Requiring these labels not only allowed consumers the ability to make their own decisions about their trans fat intake, but it also pushed the industry to move away from trans fats in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils before it became a requirement.

Some places in the United States took further steps. In 2006, New York City banned trans fatty acids in restaurant food and California restricted the use of trans fats statewide. The next step in the process came a year and half ago with the preliminary announcement that partially hydrogenated vegetable oils were no longer generally recognized as safe. This listing means that partially hydrogenated vegetable oils would need additional approval before being added to foods.

And today, the FDA took the final step by banning the use of trans fats from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.

Palm oil steps up to the plate

As companies have begun to reduce their reliance on partially hydrogenated vegetable oils in response to forced labeling and health concerns, palm oil has been a preferred replacement oil for food manufacturers because unlike most vegetable oils, is a solid at room temperature. This is due to the high degree of saturation of palm oil, which also has implications for health.

Already palm oil imports in the United States have grown dramatically since the early 2000s when many companies began to restrict use of trans fats and thus partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. In 2012, the United States imported around seven times as much palm oil as it had in 1999 when the FDA first proposed mandatory labeling. While the increase can likely be attributed to numerous factors, including the low cost of palm oil in relation to other vegetable oils, the decreasing use of partially hydrogenated oils played a role.

Thus although American consumers have already likely experienced an increase in palm oil consumption as food manufacturers reduced their use of partially hydrogenated oils, this new FDA announcement makes it likely that Americans will have even more palm oil in their diet.

This announcement is an opportunity for palm oil, and even more, an opportunity for deforestation-free palm oil. American consumers have been demanding that the palm oil in their favorite products is free from the destruction of tropical forests and carbon-rich peatlands. As companies continue to use palm oil to fill the gap left by the removal of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, an increase in demand for palm oil should in fact be an increase in demand for only deforestation-free palm oil.

Let’s use this new ban on trans fats in partially hydrogenated vegetable oil to not only improve the heart health of Americans, but to save tropical forests around the world.

Procrastination is a funny thing. While procrastination is theoretically acknowledged to be negative, people seem to delight in the concept. The internet is full of commentary on procrastination from web comics to a classification system to funny sayings. In fact, I bet a number of you just might be reading this blog to procrastinate some other work – am I right?!

And some of the time I’m on board. I’ve learned a whole lot of interesting stuff over the years during my time spent procrastinating, and the major downsides have been pulling an occasional all-nighter or skipping lunch. As long as the deadline is met, I try not to hold myself accountable for how it got done.

But procrastination is not always so innocuous; for example, putting off going to the doctor if one has a serious illness can have some pretty severe consequences. Additionally, for larger undertakings or projects, sometimes it is impossible to meet a deadline without consistent work towards your goal, sans procrastination. In terms of implementation of deforestation-free commitments, there is no room for procrastination.

“You may delay, but time will not.” – Benjamin Franklin

The timelines for implementation of the recent spate of deforestation-free and peat-free palm oil and other commodity commitments vary widely. Some are set to be fully implemented in 2015, but others don’t go into effect until later than 2020. While here at UCS we cheer each time a company takes the step to promise that in the future it will be deforestation-free, it isn’t until these commitments are implemented that the difference is really made.

In the meantime, every year, approximately 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere as a result of tropical deforestation, or about 10 percent of the world’s total emissions.

“…the best possible way to prepare for tomorrow is to concentrate with all your intelligence, all your enthusiasm, on doing today’s work superbly today. That is the only possible way you can prepare for the future.” – Dale Carnegie

The future is uncertain and no one can really predict with full accuracy by what date the supply of deforestation-free palm oil on the market will be enough to meet the demands of all these new commitments. So companies are pledging to have deforestation-free palm oil by a range of different dates. Some of the earliest deadlines originate from the packaged foods sector, including Kellogg’s, General Mills, and ConAgra who have committed to sourcing 100 percent deforestation and peat-free palm oil by the end of 2015. In general companies using a greater number of palm oil derivatives have a more challenging task and have later timelines. For example many personal care companies’ commitments, such as those of Colgate, Procter & Gamble, and L’Oréal, are set to be fully implemented by 2020.

Yet some companies, such as Heinz (though its recent merger with Kraft may alter the timeline), have timelines that are less ambitious than their peers for no apparent reason. These later dates are particularly jarring in light of the recent commitments by many of the major palm oil traders (companies in the middle of the supply chain) to bring to market a supply of palm oil that meets the criteria that companies are asking for. The largest palm oil trader in the world, Wilmar, expects to have deforestation-free and peat-free palm oil on the market by the end of 2015. So why would a company truly committed to deforestation-free commodities wait until 2017 or 2018 to begin using it?

So we must hold companies accountable for swiftly moving forward to end commodity-driven deforestation and setting ambitious target dates for full implementation. We know that with high expectations, great things can be achieved.

In 1961 President John F. Kennedy set an ambitious goal for the space program, to land on the moon by the end of the century. At the time, getting to the moon seemed overwhelming at the time, but America achieved this goal ahead of schedule. Similarly, companies using palm oil should set ambitious targets and strive to achieve them. Photo: NASA

In August of 2014, governments, 30 of the world’s largest companies and more than 50 other organizations, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, signed onto the New York Declaration on Forests. This declaration aims to end global deforestation by 2030 and eliminate commodity- based deforestation including palm oil, soy, paper, and beef by 2020.

Many of the companies we ranked in our Palm Oil Scorecard signed onto this declaration, including Danone, General Mills, Kao, Kellogg’s, L’Oréal, McDonald’s, Mondelēz, Nestlé, Procter and Gamble, Unilever, and Walmart. However, some of these companies have palm oil commitments that are not in line with their commitment in the New York Declaration. Kao, McDonald’s, Mondelēz, and Walmart all have palm oil commitments that either do not cover all of their palm oil, do not fully protect forests and peatlands, or are not set to be fulfilled by 2020.

Right now the world is watching McDonald’s. Recently McDonald’s mostly followed through on its New York Declaration on Forests commitment and outlined a plan to remove deforestation from all parts of its operations and starts with priority products including beef, fiber-based packaging, coffee, palm oil and poultry. The only catch is that the deadline for implementation is currently set at 2030, a full 10 years later than what McDonald’s agreed to for beef, palm oil, soy and paper in the Declaration. Later this year McDonald’s will release a plan outlining the specifics of its palm oil commitment and I’m expecting to see that their timeline shows that they will be sourcing deforestation-free palm oil by and hopefully before 2020.

Because why procrastinate ending deforestation when you can end it today?